And I really think this is key - people who truly want to make a difference are (hopefully?) beginning to realize that they can do much, much more outside of the more publicly celebrated offices in politics rather than in them.
This may shed some light on the wording of Flynn’s attorney’s letter:
1 Like
Exactly. This approach isn’t unusual - what’s unusual is the high-profile nature and the newsworthiness of it.
Flynn’s lawyer is reinforcing that his client is innocent and this whole thing is absurdly absurd, but don’t be surprised or assume my client is guilty when he winds up telling his story to the investigators and leverages said story to get them to leave him alone.
1 Like
You don’t practice criminal law, do you?
I ask because your “common sense” is at war with reality.
Its true. You can’t build a case on self incriminatory evidence, but that doesn’t seem to stop prosecutors from building shoddy cases with iffy evidence that falls apart under any amount of scrutiny anyways, wherein the only way that they could get a conviction would be through self incrimination.
In response to what my point is- I don’t have one. We seem to have locked horns and neither of us is going to concede.
You certainly don’t have any good reason or point to continue with.
Why can’t you build a case on self-incriminatory evidence? If you choose to plead the 5th at the getgo, that’s one thing, but if you screw up and incriminate yourself what’s stopping a prosecutor from burying you with it?
This quote… by Flynn… deserves repeating.
2 Likes
They won’t get a conviction in self-incriminating evidence. People don’t waive this right. And prosecutors bring weak cases for lots of reasons, many of which are political (they have to say they tried, else the DA is accused of being soft on crime).
Cases that fall apart without good evidence that compensate s for the lack of incriminating self-testimony is a good thing - that means the system is working as designed.[quote=“SkyzykS, post:285, topic:226860”]
In response to what my point is- I don’t have one.
[/quote]
True.
Why would you prepare a case to prove someone’s guilt on the highest measure (beyond reasonable doubt) on information that has a 99.9999% chance of never being entered into evidence against the accused?
And God bless him for that.
Braddock had been a horrible place prior to his efforts. Now it’s just not too good, which is certainly better.
1 Like
Why wouldn’t you enter it into evidence? If someone incriminates themselves (accidentally or otherwise) without pleading the 5th it’s fair game to use is it not?
Have you ever met him?
From what I can tell, he seems like a genuine guy who really walks the walk.
My dad and I were kicking around whether he would ever have a bigger role in government, and ultimately landed on this:
EDIT: I should acknowledge that he did run in the primaries last year, but my sense was that his heart was never really into that, and pretty shortly afterwards stated that he had no plans to mount another campaign for higher office (although I would support him if he did). He knows where he belongs.
As a guy thats been to big house a few times Ive never heard of anyone asking for immunity in exchange for testimony that wasnt
A) looking to trade up the boss in exchange for Freedom
B) Knows they are busted and saving ass
Pleading the 5th is not the same as asking for Immunity guys. Almost always your lawyer will have you plead the 5th its not even close to the same thing as Immunity. When you plead the 5th the prosecutor has to prove your guilt without your testimony. In a criminal proceeding you walk into the court with the cloak of innocence. Meaning you are presumed innocent until proven other wise. Immunity generally always means some snitching is about to go down. At the very least the attorney sees the possibility of a criminal indictment and feels the need to ask for it.
No. I guess we travel in different circles. I run in to a few people here and there but not him.
He kind of has to be the real deal. It’s too small of a town for anybody to get away with anything for too long. Like our beloved mayor Ravenstahl. There was a little bit of something a while back about Fetterman being on the take somehow, but none of it panned out or couldn’t be chalked up to good planning and general smarts.
His run in the primaries seemed half hearted at best. I was kind of surprised to see it.
The only way to get it into evidence is to put the person on the stand and have them testify.
If it is some kind of previous statement against interest (John testifies that Sally told him she committed the murder), sure, introduce that as evidence. That isn’t what we’re talking about. We’re talking about building a case to prove guilt without the option to put the accused on the stand and asking them to self-incriminate through testimony.
The Senate Intelligence Committee responds to Flynn’s request for immunity with nyet:
1 Like
Gotcha. I was misunderstanding the subject matter. Carry on folks
The easiest way to look at is this…
FBI has intercepted communication with Flynn and Ruskies. With proper procedure its admissible… law enforcement uses peoples words other than testimony all the time to build a case
If asked to testify yes he can plead the 5th which is ok and extremely normal in any criminal court. This is not taken as admission of guilt. But they can most deff use stuff from a tap or collected txt and email
However if you offer up testimony in return for immunity that generally means you’re either making a deal or covering your ass because you fear some possible criminal violations may have occurred.
Maybe they believe it’s a witch hunt but it looks highly suspect…but Trumpers are die hard so not sure what would make them not like him.
Edit: some background
This spy (the one being released from prison), worked with two others who escaped back to Russia before they could be arrested. The three of them were attempting to recruit Americans to spy for Russia; this is where Carter Page comes in:
FBI is investigating this too.
1 Like